If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you had to strip a DOCTYPE to make a website accessible you're using the wrong user agent for the job.

What was it, a cooker?

What do you mean "wrong user agent", "cooker"?

I'm talking about people who have even more ancient computers than mine, and really old browsers.

My computer: iMac G3, tray-loading. Half of it doesn't function, you wouldn't believe the work-arounds I have to do to get programs to work.

and their browsers like Netscape 4.6 or older, or old IE, who knows what they have? Yeah, I could program for those who should have the most modern, up-to-date, but I can't control what people around the world actually have and I do want them to be able access my website.

It's about a novel I wrote about King Tut. There is a global interest... and I'm a writer not a programmer.
I just wanted something that worked in all these older browsers!

I understand your point but please don't get messing around by changing the DTD. Instead serve the content without CSS. If written correctly, the document will render in any internet enabled device or machine and be perfectly legible. That's the point of the standards so don't change them.

when I tried my pages with the DocType on a Netscape 4.77 browser, absolutely nothing appeared, and even an older version of IE had problems. So I rewrote my index page, but, then I found out I could make my pages work without the Doctype.
So is it any wonder I did that? otherwise I had to have duplicate pages and redirects for every browser! And the browser detects/redirects did not work right for the newest IE! Without fail IE, which could read the CSS right, would go to the CSS-less version.

And I only tried that after a friend told me nothing appeared when she tried to access my webpage, and after I found out she had a really old computer, and couldn't even tell me what her browser was.

I'm not trying to be difficult, and I am still learning CSS, but am also trying to avoid frames, and to use minimum tables.
I am going to rework my pages, your accessiblity list is helpful, but...

So what do you mean by "using basic styling with ordinary stylesheet"?
Does that mean I can still use a stylesheet?
Why did I bother with CSS if nothing works right?

The aim of using css is that you separate your content from your presentation.
If your page failed to appear then did you check for validation errors?http://validator.w3.org/
With @import:
Link to an ordinary stylesheet. At the top of it, use @import to bring in the complicated styles.
Under your @import rule, list a few basic styles, perhaps just colouring the background, font, etc, which any browser will understand, and will just visually improve your 'unstyled' layout.

can I use both "link to" and "@import"?

Originally Posted by DaveSW

The aim of using css is that you separate your content from your presentation.
If your page failed to appear then did you check for validation errors?http://validator.w3.org/
With @import:
Link to an ordinary stylesheet. At the top of it, use @import to bring in the complicated styles.
Under your @import rule, list a few basic styles, perhaps just colouring the background, font, etc, which any browser will understand, and will just visually improve your 'unstyled' layout.

When I did all that, I didn't know about the Validator. I ran all my pages thru the Validator yesterday, Wow! and used a lot of the code checkers listed on the dmoz site: colorblindness, textreaders like Linux, etc. so much easier to check, instead of making my slow-poke computer do it all.

And am now making changes, used simple doctype that the older browsers accept. What amazes me is that my old Netscape 4.77 can read my little flash buttons. Tho I do provide alternates, and alternate navigation menus.

So here's a question: can I use both "link to" and "@import" for my stylesheets? or is that going to mess up?

Another problem with the validator: even tho It said my page wasn't "Valid", the page works, even in Linux. and It kept saying META codes weren't allowed in the HEAD area. and a bunch of other tags I used weren't either.
What's up with that?

I haven't tried my old Tripod site on the Validator yet, but I'm getting lots more visitors from 20+ different countries with the new one and great position on Google and Yahoo Search, and I haven't even tried to promote it yet.
So, just how important is it to have it totally okay with the "Validator"?

Hi René
Sorry for the delay replying - I didn't notice it up there in the stickies! Shall I split this off into a separate thread?
Generally speaking the doctype you use dictates what actual tags are available inside that doctype. However most browsers will still understand it if you use something not in the doctype.
So ideally you should get it to comply with the validator, even if you have to drop it down to a transitional DTD to do that.

With links and @import, you can link in a stylesheet and use @import at the top of it if you wish - in fact, that's what I do normally.
Dave

Last edited by aRené : 07-30-2005 at 07:54 AM. Reason: double posted, browser error, how do I delete it?

You can't delete nice comments about my sig. it's forbidden...
lol
actually we disabled the feature because too many people were going round deleting posts in threads they'd responded to - which leaves the forum 'disjointed' shall we say...

Yet another tool for testing web pages/sites...

The Milyn Project has posted an early release of its new opensource tool for testing web pages/sites for Cross-Browser compatibility. Its currently called "Smooks Report Generator".

Visit the tools homepage. From there you can download the tool (try it, extend it!!) and see a sample report output.

Note, the report sample is not a mockup! The prototype has real configurations for recognising the Accessibility/Cross-Browser-Compatibility issues listed in the report pages. There are only a small number of configurations right now, but we hope to build these up over time.

This tool is different from the likes of the BOBBY accessibility validation tool in that it was:a) built to test content for structures that may be valid in terms of the W3C Accessibility Guidelines, but still cause problems on a particular browser. As an example, see the following www.positioniseverything.net IE bug report and this tool reporting on that IE bug.b) designed to be easily extended by people using the tool. Hopefully this will spawn a community effort to "document" these bugs in a way that allows them to be automatically identified by this tool.

I'd be very interested in hearing all opinions - good or bad!

Is this just a rehash of the same old ideas? I don't think so (obviously ), but perhaps you do!